Introduction
India has thus far, politically, and as
a nation, been very diffident about dealing with China possibly haunted by the
ghosts of our defeat in 1962, when China regularised its encroachments into
Indian territory, and converted these into the present day Line of Actual
Control (LAC) in the Aksai Chin area, an area the size of Switzerland. This
area was/ is very important for China’s logistic infrastructure, as it connects
the Chinese occupied Tibet with Xinkiang region. The military has all along been
advocating that China is a long term threat, but considering the state of the
economy, the political dispensation did not think it was the right time, to go beyond
the diplomatic levels for solving this border/ LAC issue. General Bipin Rawat, COAS,
while speaking at an event organised by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies in
New Delhi in 2017, while commenting on Doklam, had opined, "As far as
northern adversary is concerned, the flexing of muscle has started. The salami
slicing, taking over territory in a very gradual manner, testing our limits of
threshold is something we have to be wary about and remain prepared for
situations emerging which could gradually emerge into conflict." Without
political backing, a higher defence budget allocation, & the logistic and
military infrastructure in place, the military can effectively &
efficiently tackle only limited, local skirmishes that are purely tactical in
nature.
The political attitude has seen a
noticeable change with the new political dispensation at the Centre, especially
after the Chinese initiation of the 2017 Doklam incursion. The govt stood by
the military decision, to not back off. The eyeball to eyeball confrontation
finally led to the status quo being restored, albeit after a longish standoff of
nearly 2.5 months. The Chinese have built large logistical infrastructure all
along the borders, whereas the Indian govt has not been very pro-active in this
area. This too has changed on the Indian side, and is possibly, (along with the
abrogation of Article 370 & declaration of Ladakh as a union territory in
Aug 2019, & the revised Indian map of the area thereafter) one of the major
reasons for the current standoff in the Galwan area, which seems to be a part
of a pre-meditated and planned military operation at a much higher level than
the hitherto-fore localised skirmishes between patrolling troops on the border.
Indo-Chinese border has many areas that are not physically delineated on ground due to the rugged & inhospitable topography, differing perception of the border/ Line of Actual Control (LAC) on the maps themselves, as also the fact that these regions are uninhabited regions that are inaccessible during a large part of the year.
Map of the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh showing the LoC
and the LAC.
Image Courtesy: Wikipedia
India has much to gain by analysing
Chinese actions in the past, both domestically and globally. This will help
evolve a strategy on how to deal with the Chinese threat in the present, and
future, which cannot be wished away, as China shares a large border with India.
Tiananmen Protests/ Massacre
04 June 2020 was the 31st anniversary
of what is popularly known as the Tiananmen square massacre in Beijing, in
which pro-democracy protests were mercilessly crushed by the Chinese
government, using the full might of their military, in urban settings. Official
Chinese government announcements shortly after the event put the number of dead
at around 300; this included civilians and soldiers, including 23 students from
universities in Beijing. Official sources also stated that some 5,000 soldiers
and police, along with 2,000 civilians were wounded. Chinese authorities thereafter
actively suppressed discussion of casualty figures immediately after the
events, and the unofficial estimates rely heavily on eyewitness testimony,
hospital records, and organized efforts by victims' relatives. As a result, large
discrepancies exist among various casualty estimates. Initial estimates ranged
from the official figure of 300 to independent sources claiming that the death
toll was anywhere between 2700 – 3400, with the highest estimate being that of
the then British Ambassador, who claimed that about 10,000 had died. The international community, human rights
organizations, and political analysts condemned the Chinese government for the
massacre. This has in no way deterred the Chinese from doing what they wish
within their own borders, or even in international maritime regions, or its own
border territories with neighbouring states.
South China Sea and Spratly Islands
The Chinese government has been in
constant conflict with neighbouring countries over the Spratly islands in the
South China Sea (SCS), with the infamous nine dash lines drawn in the SCS map
being used to proffer the Chinese case, but with China not precisely
articulating what its concept of these nine dash lines means. This concept is a
form of Chinese strategic ambiguity and is a useful tool to buy time to figure
out what it wants to do, or how it wants to progress its claim on the area. China’s claims do not pay heed to counter
claims on areas in the SCS by surrounding countries like Philippines, Brunei,
Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Vietnam. In addition, China’s claim of
sovereignty over SCS has been resisted by various countries like the US, Japan,
South Korea, Australia, etc, including India. Considering the uncertainty
due to the China factor, Japan had initiated a Quad Security Dialogue with the
USA, Australia and India in 2007.
In January 2013, the Philippines
formally initiated arbitration proceedings against China's claim on the
territories within the nine dash line that includes Spratly Islands. Paracel
islands have already been annexed by the expansionist China, just like Tibet. An
arbitration tribunal was constituted and it was decided that the Permanent
Court of Arbitration (PCA) would function as registry and provide
administrative duties. On 12 July 2016,
the arbitrators of the tribunal of PCA agreed unanimously with the Philippines.
They concluded in the award that there was no evidence that China had
historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources, hence
there was "no legal basis for China to claim historic rights" over
the nine-dash line. Accordingly, the PCA tribunal decision is ruled as
final and non-appealable by either country. The tribunal also criticized
China's land reclamation projects and its
South China Sea with the Paracel & Spratly Islands and the Chinese
Undefined 9-dash line, alongwith claims of other neighbouring countries.
Image Courtesy: Wikipedia
construction of artificial islands in
the Spratly Islands, saying that it had caused "severe harm to the coral
reef environment". It also characterized Taiping Island and
other features of the Spratly Islands as "rocks", and therefore is
not entitled to a 200 nautical mile EEZ. China however rejected the
ruling, calling it "ill-founded". Taiwan, which currently administers
Taiping Island, the largest of the Spratly Islands, also rejected the ruling.
Treaty on Handover of Hong Kong to China
The handover of Hong Kong from UK to China occurred
at midnight on 01 July 1997, when UK ended administration of the colony, and
returned control of the territory to China. Hong Kong became a special
administrative region (HKSAR) under the Chinese leadership, which agreed
to maintain and retain HKSAR under the “one country, two systems” principle for
the next 50 years, i.e. until 2047. This implied China maintaining the governing,
financial, and economic systems separate from those of mainland China. China
did not live up to its commitment leading to large scale civil disobedience
demonstrations in Hong Kong, starting 2014. These were widely reported and
commented upon by foreign press and observers. Responding to growing criticism
of China, the spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on 30 June 2017
commented that the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which laid the groundwork
for Hong Kong’s handover, is a “historical document that no longer has any
realistic meaning.” Not only did this statement immediately raise
concerns about China’s 50-year promise of the so-called “one country, two
systems” framework implemented in Hong Kong, it also cast doubt on China’s future commitment to international law at large.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which China is a signatory, provides
that “every treaty in force is binding upon the parties.” The Sino-British
joint Declaration not only provides the specifics regarding the handover, but
also consists of a list of commitments China made to uphold the financial,
economic, and political institutions and the freedoms and rights of the Hong
Kong people, encapsulated in the general idea that Hong Kong will enjoy “a high
degree of autonomy.”
China’s Handling of the Corona Pandemic
It is known that Corona virus
originated in the Wuhan province of China; some of the first symptoms reportedly
appeared in the first half of December. However, there are
unauthenticated reports that the Chinese govt was aware of this virus sometime
in mid November. The Chinese govt is not
very forthcoming on the Corona virus breakout and wishes to tightly control the
narrative surrounding its origin and spread. The Chinese govt informed the WHO
on 31 Dec 2019 of the first cluster, and officially declared a lockdown in
Wuhan on 23 Jan 2020 at 10 am. The virus had by then been transported to many
countries across the globe. China was reportedly aware of the human to human
transmission capability of the virus, but did not stop international travel
from Wuhan province. UK, France, Germany, US and most other countries blame China
for the corona virus pandemic. It is being said that the pandemic, which has killed
a large number of people could have been prevented, had China disclosed
information at the right time. China
did not behave as a responsible nation with its disclosure, (timing,
transmission characterstics, and extent) with regards to the information on the
Corona virus.
Chinese Governance Structure; One Man Show
It is also a known fact that the top
leader in China exercises absolute power over the vision as also the day to day
functioning of the country, as he is generally heading all three power centres within China, without any effective checks and balances; the Communist party, the Chinese state, as well as the PLA - the Chinese Military. Most programmes are undertaken centrally with
institutions having minimal say, which goes against the vision of the leader; Mao’s visionary
‘great leap forward’ lead to the largest famine in human history, which was
responsible for deaths that are estimated to vary between 18 to 45 million.
Deng followed Mao and was known to be a reformist, but the ‘Tiananmen massacre’
took place under his watch. Jiang came to power in the aftermath of Tiananmen
protests, and did relatively little except to provide relative stability, peaceful
transfer of Hong Kong from UK, centralisation of power, but is also considered
responsible for extensive corruption and collusion of business and political
elites. Hu succeeded Jiang. Hu reintroduced state control in some sectors of
the economy that were relaxed by the previous administration, and was
conservative with political reforms. His tenure was characterized by
collective leadership and consensus-based rule. At the end of his
tenure, Hu voluntarily resigned from all positions in 2012 paving way for the
present leader, Xi Jinping. Xi has significantly centralised institutional
power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the
newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees
on economic and social reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and
the internet. A personality cult has developed around him.
Xi has been labelled as a dictator by some political observers, citing an
increase of censorship, mass surveillance, deterioration in human
rights and the removal of term limits for the Presidency under
his tenure. It is amply clear that China’s
actions are dependent largely on one person who generally heads all three instruments
of power available in China; the Chinese state, the all pervasive Communist party and the Chinese military.
Lessons from China’s Past Actions
From all of the above it emerges that absolute
power is vested in one person who generally controls all the three power
centres of China. Xi happens to be that ‘paramount leader’ since 2012. Tiananmen
square and Hong Kong are reminders that the Chinese leaders do not consider
dissent as a right of every citizen, or even a large part of the citizenry, and
can thus go to any extent to suppress the freedoms of the citizens. Any country
that considers its own citizens with such contempt cannot be expected to be
fair to other countries/ humans. The South China sea brings out the fact that
China is a master at staking claims on territories that have no legal/
historical basis, except some strategic obfuscation/ ambiguity by drawing some
dashes and lines on the maps, like the initial 11 dash lines by the ROC,
corrected subsequently to the 9 dash line by the PRC, in the SCS. Even when
China lost the case in the PCA, it has refused to comply and continues to bully
its small neighbours, who stake their claim on the islands in the SCS. China
does not honour its treaties in the true sense of the word, when its own
strategic interests dictate a different course of action, as is evident from
the Hong Kong handover treaty, as well as the compliance of the PCA judgement
on the SCS. The Corona virus pandemic will have to be investigated
independently by the WHO to come to any final conclusion on the extent of
Chinese culpability in spreading the virus. Prima facie, China acted irresponsibly
in passing on information to the world body, which could have helped lessen the
impact of the virus, and fewer deaths due to COVID.
The India-China Strategic Equation
India and China have vastly different
governance structures, and are also at different levels of economic, military,
scientific, technological levels. China has centralised power in one person
with hardly any practically effective checks and balances; the person heads all
the seats of power; the state, the military, as well as the Communist party. This
is in direct contrast to a parliamentary democracy like India, where-in every
decision of the govt can be, and is, questioned, both inside and outside the
parliament.
China’s nominal GDP (est) figures for
2019 are at $14.140 trillion, with a per capita GDP of over $10000; India’s
corresponding figures stand at $3.202 trillion and $2338. China’s military
budget is $177.6 billion with active personnel over 2 million; India’s figures
are $66.9 billion and 1.4 million. Scientifically and technologically too China
is way ahead of India. Considering that this disparity has existed for many years,
it is evident that China has an edge over India. Qualitatively the Indian
military is better trained and relatively more battle tested and ready than the
Chinese, who have fought no real wars, and is composed of children mostly born
under the ‘one child’ regime. India needs to thus be realistic in its approach
in tackling the Chinese threat, starting with the immediate, while keeping the short,
medium, and long term in mind.
The Way Forward
India must continue to resist Chinese
troops at the border; continue with military and diplomatic level talks to
diffuse the present situation at all the four inflamed areas; and politically
seek to boost political, diplomatic & military ties with the nations of the
Indo-Pacific region. The Modi/ Morrison virtual summit of 04 Jun 2020 is a step
in the right direction, where-in the two nations agreed to elevate their ties
to a comprehensive strategic partnership and also signed a crucial agreement
for reciprocal access to military logistics facilities, allowing for more
complex joint military exercises, and improved interoperability of the two
militaries.
India will need to develop closer
relationship with other countries in the region, and beyond, on the basis of
shared democratic values, rules based multi-lateral systems, an open and
inclusive Indo-Pacific region, respect for transparency, strengthening and
diversifying supply chains for all critical goods in different sectors of the economy.
There is an urgent need to formalise the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, as
the Chinese threat is now real, and growing.
Bilateral trade between China and India
touched US$89.6 billion in 2017–18, with the trade deficit widening to US$62.9
billion in China's favour. India will need to cut back on non essential imports
from China, as a first step. Trade that funds the Chinese war fighting
capability, which is being used against our national interest, needs to be
completely stopped at the opportune time.
It is very important to build and
maintain physical infrastructure which can facilitate holding on to our claimed
territories, even in remote, inaccessible, and inhospitable terrain. The claims
and counter claims need to be settled once for all with mutual give and take,
and thereafter the border should be mutually agreed to, with on ground delineation
by observers from both countries. This is vital to safeguard our national
sovereignty. In case this is not done, then the grounds for future conflict
would continue to exist.
Comments
Thank you